Category Archives: Circular Firing Squad

Post navigation

A friend complains that the Republican Congress has accomplished nothing worthwhile in the last two years and as Democrats take the House, gridlock is the best we can hope for. He blames Trump Derangement Syndrome and says it truly is disgusting that a boorish, childish, selfish egomaniac is the best example of conservative leadership we have.

First, he’s judging the President by the wrong standard. A wise, mature, gracious statesman was not on offer in the last election. The alternative to Trump was Hillary. The correct standard to apply is: “Has Trump become Hillary yet?” No? Then he’s good to go. Carry on.

But he’s right about Congress. We can’t have a border wall, we can’t confirm conservative judges, we can’t fill executive branch positions, because of people like Senator Never Trump And To Hell With The Nation Flake, to name just one.

If Trump announced today he’s not running in 2020, which nationally prominent Republican would you pick to replace him?

Sorry to say, with Scott walker out of office and never nationally problem to begin with, I’m already out of ideas…

This morning on the lesser talk station, the host – Drew Lee – asked you about the approach your caucus, with its one-vote majority, was going to take regarding gun control in the coming session, given incoming Speaker Hortman’s statement that gun control is going to be her first priority.

(In a state with a muirder rate among the lowest in the nation – truly the extremist tail wagging the dog).

Your repliy seemed to indicate the proper response was to work with the opposition to find “a solution”.

I’ll make it simple; the solution is fight crime. Take everything that burdens the law-abiding gun owner off the table.

End of sentence.

The DFL – beholden as they are to millions of dollars in Bloomberg money for their wins in the election – will fight you on it.

We – the good guys, the law-abiding gun owners – will fight you a lot harder if you screw us.

Now, considering the Democrats that run in Edina these days – Anselmo beat Ron Erhardt, after all – it might be fair to say that of the options available, Anselmo passes the Buckley test (the most conservative candidate who can win) under the circumstances.

But as we’ve noted in the past, Anselmo is a prominent turncoat on the gun issue. He’s one of few Republicans found at Moms Want Action events; the sole gloss of “bipartisanship” in the extreme-left gun control movement.

But if he’d hoped that his accomodationalism would buy him any favor from Big Gun Grab (a wholliy owned subsidiary of Big Left?)

For Anselmo, a bitter lesson was learned this week when, after months of supporting limits to Second Amendment rights in order to curry favor with far left gun control advocates “Moms Demand Action,” his opponent, Heather Edelson, was effectively endorsed. Heather wears pearls; you can’t say she doesn’t know Edina. But this endorsement puts paid to the idea that if Republicans only find the illusory “common ground” with the other side, they will be rewarded for their efforts.

Moms Demand Action is part of “Everytown for Gun Safety,” a radical gun control group largely financed by Michael Bloomberg.

So he danced with the devil, and didn’t even get his thirteen pieces of silver, apparently.

Anselmo was frequently the lone Republican at Moms’ rallies at the State Capitol. This garnered him the approval of Democrats in the media like Lori Sturdevant but at the cost of discouraging his base, for which one could be forgiven in thinking Anselmo believes he doesn’t need.

Having contempt for the people who put you there – even if you don’t really know that – is a bad, bad plan.

Question: wonder if Lori Sturdevant will castigate the Action Moms for their lack of bipartisanship?

Trump, and a GOP controlled Congress that hasn’t upheld Republican principles since the mid-nineties and seems to be herniating itself to out-Trump Trump in terms of giving goodies to populist bases, has just passed a budget bill that only Chuckles Schumer could love.

In a video circulated among Republican activists last week, State GOP deputy chair Dave Pascoe said that if the platform resolution barring Muslims from participation in the MNGOP passed, he’d resign.

All due respect to Deputy Chair Pascoe, but I”m not resigning anything. I’m going to fight the know-nothings in the party just as hard as I do the know-nothings outside the party.

American conservatism is built around *rejecting* the ideal of collective guilt. Anyone who says “All Muslims…” do, believe or act on *anything* as a group (even if the argument is based on sound information or even logic, which these days it’s not – it relies on “information” from a series of fever-swamp websites and the sorts of “experts” you run into at last call at bars in areas with no real problems) is no better than the most worthless DFL social justice warrior and their blabbering about identity.

Think about it, if you’re so inclined; we demand (justly) that Muslims assimilate to our society. Then we tell them “But not with us!”

The idea that the soul of the party of Lincoln, Reagan, Buckley and Goldwater would be taken over by people who subscribe to collective guilt is too much to handle.

Anyone bringing this moronic resolution at SD65 is going to get their face singed.

And that, as they say, is all.

UPDATE: And to everyone out there who says “You stand for tolerating Muslims? So, what – you want to live under Islam?” That is, and you are, too stupid to bother answering. Shut up.

Senate Republicans can rejoice that the pervert lost. They should rename themselves The Purity Party: only the truly virtuous may apply. If they get choosy enough, they can save on convention expenses – meet for coffee at the local Denny’s, plenty of room for The Chosen Few.

92% of Democrats voted, only 50% of Alabama Republicans. Disheartened? The Establishment, the media, everyone against them, and some people probably had legitimate concerns about the allegations. Still, it was close. Democrats learned the tactic will work but they need to adjust the timing. Republicans learned . . . what?

What everyone in The Purity Party forgets is that Democrats vote as a unified monolithic block, marching to the same party line with no thought of principles or morals. Senate Republicans are like herding cats, which is why even with a majority they can’t get anything accomplished. One fewer person in their saintly congregation isn’t going to make it easier to roll back Obama’s successes.

Which makes one wonder: do Rockefeller Republicans care about that?

Joe Doakes

On the one hand, I’d very much like to see the GOP get a lot better both at vetting candidates (if Moore did do what’s been alleged, I find it hard to believe it surprised everyone) and defending against this sort of thing (why did Moore not sue every single accuser for defamation, as fast as possible, if only to get their statements – perjured statements? – on record immeidately?)

On the other? I thinks this is a continuing lesson to Republicans that are paying attention – especially if the charges against Moore wind up being frauds. I say “continuing”, because the election of Donald Trump itself proves that an awful lot of voters are starting to ignore the noise machine.

The Washington big-shots still don’t get it. We didn’t vote for Trump because he was crass, we voted for him even though he was crass. We voted for him because he wasn’t Jeb or Mario or any of the other appeasers quietly going along with Hillary’s coronation. We voted for him because he was willing to push back against the endless slanders issued by Democrats, the media, academia and Hollywood against ordinary, decent, law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying Americans.

Trump is not the swamp, senator, he’s the guy we hired to drain the swamp and you’ve been standing in his way. Don’t let the door hit you . . . .

President Trump got skunked in the Spring continuing resolution – no money for The Wall. He was busy with the Supreme Court nominee so okay, let that one go. But in this next deal, he absolutely must get some money for The Wall or he’s never going to get it. If the Resisters beat him on his signature issue, his presidency will be lame duck all the way down.

Trump should start tweeting now, warning citizens to prepare for a shut-down if the money’s not in the resolution. The people who elected him want that, first and foremost. He’s got to deliver.

Doesn’t have to be much money. It could be a symbolic $1.00, just as long as Congress votes for it. Trump must make them cry “Uncle” because after that, we’ve established the principle and we’re only arguing over the amount.

Frankly, Democrats are not the problem. They continue to serve the interests of the dead people and illegals who elected them. But the Never-Trump RINOs have no excuse so why not go after them? Because we need them. We need every one of their votes and as tempting as it might be to name names while kicking behinds, a different tactic is warranted on this side of the aisle. On that side, we know Democrats will never break ranks so there’s no harm in savaging them.

Of course, Liberals will complain that funding The Wall is a budget-buster. We can’t afford it. There are higher priorities. Get out in front of that argument early. Start by proposing to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and shift that funding to The Wall. Trump gave up his salary this year, but he could offer to redirect his salary as President toward The Wall next year. Divert federal aid from sanctuary cities to The Wall. Revenue neutral, no additional funding required, completely affordable if we would only make national security a higher priority than frivolities.

This is not a political problem or fiscal problem, it’s a marketing problem. Trump has to rally the troops to swing the polls so finger-licking moderates can feel the change in the wind and cast a vote to fund The Wall. There will never be a better time.

Joe Doakes

Electoral fear is both sides’ best weapon. Trump has the initiative. Will he use it?

Today, after months of wrangling, word dribbled out that the Stand Your Ground and Constitutional Carry bills were not going to get a floor vote. While the bill wouldn’t pass into law, we wouldn’t need to re-argue it next session – which would be a huge benefit, especially given (cough cough) it’s an election year.

It was a kick in the teeth for Second Amendment voters.

Which is a bit of a problem. Can you think of a group in this state that has done more, with less outstate support, than the shooters? That did more to get your majority?

Thanks for nothing.

I get it – politics are complicated. Compromises happen. It’s just that as for me and a lot of people like me, you made the wrong one.

So – not another dime. Not another phone call. Not another minute of time until you get your collective head right.

Nothing against Howe, who was a capable legislator and an estimable mayor of Red Wing – but this endorsement is a classic example of Berg’s 11th Law:

Berg’s Eleventh Law of Inverse Viability: The conservative liberals “respect” for their “conservative principles” will the the one that has the least chance of ever getting elected.

Jason Lewis is the endorsed candidate, with immense name recognition and a record as the father of modern Minnesota conservatism. Darlene Miller is John Kline’s preferred candidate. The fourth, the putative Trump-supporting candidate Hey Look At Meeeee, along with Howe, rounds out the field.

I’ll be interviewing Jason Lewis this coming Saturday on the NARN, by the way.

I’ll be broadcasting live from the GOP State Convention on Friday from 6-8PM, and again on Saturday fro 1-3PM.

I’m neither a delegate nor a member of the State Central Committee, so I won’t be voting on anything

But I will be doing my level best to help any group that seeks to limit the power of the Judicial Elections Commission. Perhaps not end the JEC, per se – but in exchange for leaving the JEC alive, I want the heads of those responsible for the Michelle MacDonald debacle displayed on pikes outside the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center.

Rhetorically speaking, of course.

Speaking of Michelle MacDonald: she’s running for the Supreme Court again. That’s certainly her right; hopefully the convention chair won’t make the same mistake that happened in 2014.

Speaking of MacDonald – her followers are making the technically true but contextually laughable assertion that MacDonald got a higher percentage of the vote than any other GOP candidate in 2014. Which is true…

…and also deeply misleading – and I can not wait for the first MacDonald supporter to try to bring that up on the air.

MacDonald got 46% and change, it’s true – running mostly against the GOP, and little or not at all against David Lillehaug (who ran, effectively, no campaign at all). As I pointed out after the last election, all contested judicial elections get an average of 35-40% – it’s an outlet for people’s obstinacy, apparently (I always, always vote for challengers, whether I know or care about them or not, and I can not be the only one).

So MacDonald got about 4% more than “background noise”. And while I have no empirical evidence for this, I’m going to speculate with confidence that had she not been running against Darth Lillehaug – one of the most anti-gun politicians (excuse me, “jurists”) in the business, she’d have come in in the thirties without a whole lot of shooters voting against Lillehaug and not for MacDonald.

So while my actual means for dealing with the JEC and MacDonald are limited, I’m going to use what I can to encourage those who can do something about it to seriously punish the JEC, and send MacDonald back to famlaw.

Speaking of family? Read this time-line of MacDonald’s most famous case. I have no idea if MacDonald was involved in any wrongdoing – specifically, the systematic alienation of a custodial father’s children against him – but as a matter of principle, everyone who interferes with another parent’s access to their kids should rot in hell.

There’s an old parable; I want to say it’s Russian, since it sounds like it’s part of the Russian character. I don’t know.

But it’s a good parable. There once was a swamp full of frogs. The frogs in a swamp were happy; plenty of slime to jump through, plenty of bugs to eat.

But something was missing. So they asked “why can’t we have a king?”

And presently, a king was sent to them; a stork.

Storks, of course, eat frogs.

The moral: be careful what you wish for.

Along those lines, a longtime friend of the blog writes:

I have a friend here at work who for years has said our problem is that we elect politicians. Well, now he belly-aches because he thinks a Trump presidency is a bad idea. Unless there is a serious change, soon, he’s going to get exactly what he said he wanted, originally — in nominee-form, anyway.

Jesse Ventura II

I like to think that’s why Minnesota bucked the Trump wave last night; we’ve been through this before.

Who am I going to caucus for? Well, not Trump. I think he’s an epic fraud who will betray the conservatives who’ve lined up behind him. He’s like an executive brand David Souter, via Vince McMahon.

And I won’t be caucusing for Kasich – who I think is a solid VP candidate – or Carson, who I believe is way out of his depth, and who needs to run for Mayor of Detroit, where he’ll do a lot more good than he’s doing now.

My short list – Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal – are both obviously out of the picture. So it’s down to Cruz or Rubio for me.

Who’s it gonna be?

Not sure. Partly because I am, genuinely, not sure. And partly because the vitriol inside the party has gotten so very, very mindless and pointless. Dennis Prager writes about it – and it’s something every Republican, and especially every conservative, should read before they go to the caucuses:

So this is where we stand today: Many anti-Rubio Republicans regard Rubio as a traitor on the immigration issue and therefore have contempt for his supporters. Many anti-Cruz Republicans regard Cruz as an extremist conservative who is, moreover, a misanthrope, and therefore have contempt for his supporters. And many anti-Trump Republicans – perhaps most – regard Trump as a dangerous fraud, and therefore view his supporters with contempt.

Needless to say, with these attitudes, there is little chance any Republican can win.

So, then, despite eight years of failure under a Democratic president, and with Hillary Clinton — widely regarded as a completely untrustworthy woman who has put pursuit of money and power above the interests of her country — as the Democratic candidate, Republicans will still lose. And Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves.

One observation I made of Ron Paul supporters in 2008 and 2012 – that they seemed to be personality cultists, who believed not only was Paul the only valid choice, but that any other choice was no better in any way than a Democrat, or nobody at all – has metastasized across much of the GOP body politic this cycle.

And so while the “passion index” favors the GOP by landslide proportions – it is, at this point, almost entirely aimed at other Republicans, rather than at the doddering would-be Hugo Chavez or cynical, calculating would-be Eva Peron who, some need to be reminded, actually would be worse for the country than Rubio, Cruz or even Trump.

So if Trump wins the nomination? I’ll vote for him – not because I think he’ll be a good president, not because I think he’s going to hold to his promises (not even on immigration), and not even because I think he, himself, will nominate better SCOTUS justices than Hillary. I’ll do it because he’ll have to run to the legislative majority to get anything done – and if we don’t have a GOP Senate or House, we’re truly screwed. And if Trump doesn’t win convincingly, then the coat-tail effect will tend to increase the power of the worthless whackdoodle Democrats.

On the weekend before the official kickoff of the GOP nomination season, Donald Trump would seem to have the momentum. Now, both of “my guys” for this race – Walker and Jindal – are long gone, so my short list is (in very rough order) Rubio, Cruz, Paul, Christie.

But I keep getting asked – what if Trump is, at the end of the day, the nominee?

Simple. I’ll hold my nose and vote for Trump.

It’s not just because I regard third-party candidacies as irrelevant exercises in personal philosophical navel-gazing – that’s between you and your conscience, and is none of my business.

And it’s not that I’m a “my party, right or wrong” guy; I’m a Tea Party Conservative who votes GOP because it is, to evoke Buckley, the most conservative party that can win. And if Trump, heaven forefend, is the most conservative person on the ballot who can win next November, then I’ll vote for him.

But Trump promises to be a rerun of the Jesse Ventura years, only coast-to-coast. So why bother?

Scalia – one of the better conservative minds in the history of the court – lamentably can’t last forever. Having Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders nominate his “replacement” – or that of Kennedy, the most powerful “Moderate” in the history of the universe – would turn the SCOTUS bright blue for decades to come. Kiss any chance of rolling back Obamacare, getting control of immigration or voting or the borders, or the Second Amendment, goodbye right now.

And by the opposite token, if Kennedy retires, or Ginsburg gets called by her overlords back to her mothership, during a GOP administration, there’s at least a chance of getting a much better, more conservative justice on the bench. And don’t be caterwauling at me about what disappointments Roberts and Souter turned out to be as conservatives; without a GOP president and GOP Senate, “eventual disappointment” is the best you can hope for.

Remember – Trump may well nominate a complete idiot. But the Senate has to confirm them. And if both a hypothetical President Trump and a GOP Senate are idiots, then we’re screwed – but those are both “maybes”; you can bet a hypothetical President Sanders will nominate Saul Alinksky, and Clinton’s nominees will make Sonia Sotomayor look like John Marshall.

SCENE: Mitch BERG is waiting in line at the Rack Shack on South Robert. Stephanie Marie ANNAN – Community organizer for the 5th CD Libertarian Party – enters with a great clatter, vigorously stomps off her boots, and gets in line, finally noticing BERG.

ANNAN: Hey, Merg! I don’t like all that stuff you’ve been saying about how us Ron Paul people just like to throw…what do you call it?”

BERG: “Turd bombs”.

ANNAN: Yeah! The GOP did it first, back in 2008!

BERG: Yeah, so I’ve been told. That was about three years before I got involved in the GOP beyond going to caucuses, by the way. I know there’s been going on eight years of tit-for-tat between the Ron Paul clicque and the “establishment”, which I’m told I’m part of, even though I got involved in the party after the Tea Party.

ANNAN: You’re already boring me.

BERG: That seems to happen a lot. You all apprently got “bored” with Kurt Bills after you you all went to Tampa in 2012…

ANNAN: Hey – there’s a special primary coming up in a house district 68B!

BERG: Yeah, it’s been in all the papers.

ANNAN: I suppose you’re supporting the Republican candidate, like some mindless sheeple?

BERG: No, I support the endorsed Republican candidate because I’m an intelligent, informed voter. I think the endorsed candidate, Mindy Pilph, is an excellent choice. Although I don’t actually live in the district.

ANNAN: I plan on supporting her primary opponent!

BERG: Who? Jesse Duff?

ANNAN: Yes!

BERG: Duff supports doubling the gas tax, banning civilian firearm ownership, rolling back school choice and instituting an entirely grievance-based curriculum, and adopting the North Korean style socialist philosophy of “Juche“, an isolationist firm of Stalinism based on all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent state. Which seems – pardon me for saying so – counterintuitive for someone who was a high ranking functionary in the Ron Paul campaign four years ago. Since Duff would seem to be the polar opposite of Libertarian, I gotta say, that’s a zig when I expected a zag.

ANNAN: But he’s independent from the Minnesota Republican Party.

BERG: Well, with good reason. He stands for everything the party rejects.

ANNAN: But he’s independent!

BERG: But he’s the exact opposite of Libertarian.

ANNAN: So?

BERG: So yet again, it seems that “libertarian principle” isn’t really as big a deal as trying to TP the MNGOP….

One of the downsides of being a GOP activist and officer is that you have to get involved, even passively, in GOP inside baseball. Ever. For any reason.

And of course, it’s important; without a viable challenge to the DFL, Minnesota is a few downturns away from turning into California. Or Minneapolis.

So I go to the meetings. I vote on stuff. I do my bit to try to help get better people elected to office; not just Republicans, but conservative Republicans who support limited government.

And I try to get as informed as I can about some of the “inside baseball” issues in the GOP; the budget deficit (how the hell…?), the collapse in the Cities, the turnout issues in the first and second ring ‘burbs…

…and of course, the Judicial Elections Committee.

That Buzzing Sound That Never Goes Away: The JEC is an obscure fixture in the MNGOP, focusing both on endorsing judicial candidates and fighting for judicial reform.

As re the second? The subject is a deadly combination of intensely technical and very important. It’s intensely picayune – and absolutely vital. The judiciary has turned into an unaccountable, opaque, lifetime sinecure in Minnesota; judges have extremely disproportionate power as a result, and the ability to make sweeping decisions with almost no accountability. And the power extends beyond just the courtroom; the past several state redistricting processes, including the 2010 redistricting – gerrymandered enough to make Bull Connor and George Wallace sit up in the grave and say “Hey, bucko, you’re getting a little carried away, here”. “Shall Issue” carry reform was struck down in 2004 by a judge whose home was a DFL hamster wheel and who, ignoring the fact that every state budget is a combination of omnibus bills full of unrelated amendments, struck down the law because it wasn’t closely enough related to the bill that was originally amended.

So there is a problem that needs to be solved.

There’s a lot of history to the notion of judicial endorsements, and the creation of the JEC, and its activities since it was established; I’ve written about them in the past, and I won’t rewrite it all now (search my site for references to the phrase “My brain went blank and my ass went numb”).

But it’s the JEC’s recent history that concerns me most.

Last Saturday was the GOP’s State Central Committee meeting. I didn’t attend – but the future of the JEC was one of the subjects up for discussion. And my butt went a little numb just reading the accounts on Twitter.

Business: Of course, the JEC’s main claim to “fame” was the endorsement of Michelle McDonald to run for State Supreme Court. This happened at the MNGOP State Convention in Rochester in May of 2014. McDonald turned out to have a pending year-old DUI charge – about which the convention was not told. We’ve written about this at some length in the past.

Let’s fast forward to last Saturday. A series of handouts was waiting for the SCC delegates as they arrived at the event, or distributed during the convention; a friend scanned and sent them to me (the scan is included below the jump).

In it, the JEC explains the reasons for its existence – and, to be honest, does it fairly well, in places (and let’s be honest – the handout was written by logorrheacs, and you have to dig to find the good stuff. But it’s in there). In all my years of listening to JEC members trying to explain why judicial endorsements, and judicial reform, are good and vital, and why retention elections are bad, this is the first time even the faintest hint of a light has gone off above my head.

And so partly as a result of this handout, my previous determination to tear down the JEC, with flamethrowers if necessary, has been tempered just a bit.

I said “the JEC”.

The JEC’s membership is another story.

Twenty Octogenarians Driving A Clown Car: If you recall – and I completely forgive you if you do not – the history of and beef with the McDonald endorsement goes a little something like this:

The JEC recommended Michelle McDonald – a controversial family-law lawyer – for nomination to run for the Supreme Court (SCOM).

At the State Convention, after the delegates had endured a 20-odd-hour endorsement battle for Senate, the JEC brought McDonald to the stage for a speech and a motion for endorsement by acclamation. Many delegates were out – grabbing a bite, or in the bathroom, or stretching their legs after the endless Senate battle – and many that were in the room reported feeling bum-rushed – but the motion for acclamation passed, and McDonald was endorsed.

The following week, the media reported that McDonald had a pending DUI charge awaiting trial.

Reports emerged that the JEC had been aware of this charge, but had voted to nominate McDonald anyway, and had voted to not inform the delegates, including blocking an attempt to issue a minority report to the convention that would have brought up the legal issues for the delegates’ consideration.

McDonald and the MNGOP brass spent the next five months fighting each other, under a blazing media spotlight, rarely managing or bothering to engage the DFL’s candidate, Darth Lillehaug, on any level.

McDonald went on to lose the election against Lillehaug. According to some reports, her campaign raised less that $1,000, and spent about $8,000.

The handouts give a couple of insights into the JEC’s performance – or “performance” – at the 2014 State convention, in the first two pages (the pink ones, whose order is reversed; page 2 is actually page 1). It’s also full of opinion-driven weasel words – “the chair appeared…”, “in the committee’s opinion, the chair…” and the like.

There are two quotes from the handout, though, that display…something about the JEC’s opinion of itself; whether that something is arrogance, incompetence or malfeasance, I’m not sure and I’ll leave it to better judges than I.

It should be noted that the purpose of any endorsing committee is to spare the convention the task of sorting through a candidate’s personal life. the job of any endorsing committee is to do the work in confidence and present a yes or no to the convention. Committees focus on a candidate’s message, their willingness to campaign hard and their ability appeal (sic) to voters. The idea that the Judicial Election Committee (or any other nominating committee) should air a candidate’s personal information to the convention is badly misinformed.

Exactly what a nominating committee is supposed to do is a subject worthy of discussion. And the passage may be right; a nominating committee should concern itself with competence and electability.

But a legal proceeding that is guaranteed to provoke a media feeding frenzy is both not “personal information” – it’s a public record, available online from the courts – and of direct impact to the candidate’s electability.

So this quote – along with the rest of the information in the handout, brings up three possibilities:

The majority of the JEC genuinely believed that an arrest record is “personal information” that was nobody’s business. If this was the case, then we’re dealing with some stupid people. Arrest records are public! Public! Public! Anyone who thought this was “personal information”, and believed that the media and DFL would treat it that way, needs to be publicly (rhetorically) horsewhipped.

They knew about the arrest record, but figured it wouldn’t be a problem, since McDonald assured them the charge was BS: You’ll note how many media figured led with the whole “Michelle McDonald is innocent until proven guilty, and gosh, she looks like she has a strong case” tack, right? Somewhere less than zero? Part of a nominations commission’s job is to try, as far as possible, to prevent media poo-storms like…the one we had.

The JEC figured the news would be a problem, but wanted to jam McDonald down anyway, leading a supermajority to vote against the issuance of a minority report. This is the worst kind of malfeasance.

We also see in another quote that the JEC is wallowing in either wishful thinking or an arrogant desire to bullshit the rest of the party:

…in spite of the flap over a now resolved (not guilty) DWI case, Michelle McDonald for Supreme Court won 46.54% of the vote. This is higher than Johnson, McFadden, Severson, Gilbert and Newman – all the other MNGOP endorsed candidates

How stupid do these people think the rest of the party is?

The DWI is “now resolved” – but it wasn’t at election time. And the media certainly didn’t harp on “innocence until proven guilty”.

As to her turnout? As we pointed out the first time the JEC tried to use this chanting point to gull the gullible, it was BS. McDonald got 46% against Lillehaug, it’s true – but John Hancock got 42% against Mimi Wright, and virtually every contested judicial race in the state got 35-40%. McDonald outscored random, obstinate, uninformed noise by 4-6%. And while it’s possible she outperformed “background noise” due to her brilliant campaign, it’s also possible that a few thousand shooters voted against Darth Lillehaug, and would have no matter who was nominated.

My Conclusion, For Those Who Care?: The JEC exists for good reason. Minnesota’s judicial system needs changes, and the GOP needs to help drive those changes.

But most of its members need to go. Decency would involve resignations of the sitting membership for their malfeasance, or at least stupidity, in the McDonald flap. The JEC process is almost completely opaque to delegates, and even officers at the BPOU and Congressional District level. I’m an officer, and I have no idea how Judicial Districts elect officers and do business. It’s not just me.

The JEC, in my opinion, is a nook and cranny of the GOP that was built by, and is controlled by, a group of people who have turned it into their little political playground. This doesn’t serve the mission that the JEC has set out for itself.

Just my opinion. But I’m not alone.

As we’ll see, I’m sure, come the next State Convention.

Telling Tangent: Want to know something ironic? I might well have voted for McDonald even with the pending DUI charge, had the JEC tried a little honesty, and had McDonald spent more time tackling Darth Lillehaug than Keith Downey. But if I’d known about her involvement in the Grazzini-Rucki custody battle, I’d have voted for Charles Manson before I’d vote for McDonald. If McDonald was involved with kidnapping and brainwashing a couple of kids against their custodial father, she deserves much worse than losing an election.

Walker was the *only* candidate in the race that has actually walked the walk when it comes to pushing back on the public employee unions, whose pensions are going to bankrupt this nation long before any war will.

“But he built a stadium for the Bucks!”, some chant. Yeah, he’s not perfect. No candidate is.

“But he’s weak on foreign policy”. He could appoint his motorcycle Secretary of State and have a better foreign policy team than the current occupant.

“But he’s got no charisma!”. Good God, people – voting for charisma is as likely to get you Barack Obama as it is Ronald Reagan. I’ll take an “uncharismatic” president who not only knows how to *talk* about drawing and holding lines, but *has done it, successfully, against brutal, ruthless opposition*, over some “charismatic” candidate for whom it’s all theory, however charismatically expressed.

Given a choice between Calvin Coolidge – an uncharismatic president who shrank government, getting it out of the way of epic prosperity – and a “charismatic” hamster like our current president, is it even a choice?

To: The MNGOP Judicial Elections Committee
From: Mitch Berg, Uppity Peasant Who Resents The Time He’s Wasted Listening To You People Over The Years
Re: Monday Morning Quarterbacking

Dear JEC,

Quick – without looking at a ballot, tell us – who was running for the other Supreme Court of Minnesota (SCOM) seat on Tuesday?

We’ll come back to that.

Some of you are giggling like schoolgirls that Michelle MacDonald, after all of the back-and-forth over her endorsement and legal issues, got 46% of the vote for Supreme Court against Darth Lillehaug (who came in at 53%). .

Hold the giggling. Did you remember who was running for the other SCOM seat that was up for grabs?

It was Mimi Wright against John Hancock; Wright won 56/42. And Hancock didn’t have the benefit of five months of media attention to his (non-existent) endorsement fiasco, party wrangling and legal travails.

And perhaps more importantly, he wasn’t running against Darth Lillehaug.

Look at every other judicial race in the state. The challengers in the (very few) races that weren’t opposed generally netted 35-40% of the vote. And why? Because they weren’t incumbents. Random noise.

So 35-40% of Michelle McDonald’s 46% were votes the GOP could have gotten by nominating Sharon Anderson or Leslie Davis or Clu Berg, my golden retriever.

So don’t go claiming any credit for outperforming the GOP as a whole.

Now, this blog has already spent plenty of time castigating the JEC for the sleazy way you got McDonald endorsed – trotting her across the stage as a convention hall full of delegates with numb asses from 20 hours of wrangling over the Senate endorsement were getting ready for another half day of untangling a 5-way Governor race, and – unforgiveably – voting to not disclose to the delegates that Ms. McDonald had a pending court case for driving while intoxicated, rushing her through an acclamation endorsement without bothering to mention that the woman had “Media Poo-Storm” written all over her.

We apparently didn’t need to know that.

She spent the next five months, camera diliigently thrust in front of her, roaming the state, trashing the GOP, getting headlines from a media whose mission is also trashing the GOP, mostly winning her legal case…

A camera. Michelle MacDonald is standing behind it.

…and making people who follow these sorts of things wonder what was going on in there?

So let’s recap:

The JEC performs a dishonest sleight of hand, and gets Michelle MacDonald endorsed.

She runs against David Lillehaug – one of the few other SCOM candidates this side of Alan Page with a media profile.

She gets 4% better than a complete unknown running in an unknown race against an unknown opponent.

This tells us a couple of things:

A good 30-40% of the vote in any contested judge race will be anti-incumbent, no matter who it is.

Apparently that 30-40% doesn’t care if someone was charged with DUI, or wouldn’t know if they did.

Either people liked Michelle McDonald, or they hated David Lillehaug.

So – how could things have gone differently?

What if you, the JEC, had tried just a skosh of honesty? What would have happened?

Maybe you’d have lost the nomination. And then again, maybe a straightforward minority report, coupled with an honest explanation of the exigencies from Ms. McDonald, would have won the delegates over.

Of course, the media would have have bellowed “GOP ENDORSES ACCUSED DRUNK DRIVER”.

Which they did anyway! Only this time the GOP would have been at her back (although that would have taken some cojones). And then it would have been off to the general election, Where 30-40% would have voted for her or Sharon Anderson or Paula Overby or Clu Berg.

And 4-6% would have voted for her because they’d heard of her.

And then Minnesota’s Second Amendment lobby, convinced they were backing a viable candidate instead of a skittery liabililty, could have called in the tribes and fired off some of their carefully-hoarded political capital against David Lillehaug, their sworn enemy. If there’s anyone who wants Lillehaug to go into retirement, it’s Minnesota’s shooters. Most of their races won; their support turned out the tribes in support of not just a few longshots. To take down Darth Lillehaug?

It could have been a match made in heaven.

Instead, you – the JEC – tried to manipulate the convention, and did it very badly.

SCENE: Mitch BERG is biking in the southwest suburbs. He pulls over into a coffee shop.

As he sits down, he notices Stephanie Marie ANNAN, Community Organizer for the Minnesota 5th CD Libertarian party. She is wearing capri pants and a t-shirt with “He Gave His Only Begotten Son”, and a picture of Ron Paul walking across the water toward the camera.

ANNAN: Hey, Mitch.

BERG: Hey, Stephanie Marie. Ready for the election.

ANNAN: Yep. I’m voting Libertarian.

BERG: Kinda figured. So – why?

ANNAN: Because big changes need to happen.

BERG: Yeah, that’s true. That’s why I’m voting for Jeff Johnson as many times as Mark Richie will let me get away with it.

ANNAN: He won’t bring any changes. The GOP is just as big a part of the problem as the DFL is.

BERG: Er…why do you say that?

ANNAN: When people put the GOP in power, they were just as bad as the Democrats. There is no difference between the parties.

BERG: Yeah, the GOP can be frustrating. Although you’re oversimplifying. Bobby Jindal has made a huge difference in Louisiana; under his leadership, the New Orleans Public Schools went all charter. Other GOP governors – Pence, Haley, Walker, Martinez – have made inroads in reducing the size and power of government. The GOP – and GOP candidates – have made a difference at limiting government and its impact over the years. Reagan’s tax cuts were a huge help…

ANNAN: Reagan grew the deficit! He raised taxes!

BERG: Bingo. You’re making my point for me. Reagan, being a Republican president dealing with a Democrat Congress run by a big-government ward heeler like Tip O’Neill, had to make compromises. One of those compromises was that he had to trust O’Neill to keep up his end of the bargain on cutting spending – which, of course, he didn’t. And for all of that, his “tax hikes” were a fraction of his tax cuts, and they happened at a time when the economy was humming along. If you don’t think Reagan’s tax cuts in the early eighties helped immensely with the recession, you’re dreaming.

Anyway – the GOP in 1994 made a huge difference in paring back Bill Clinton’s megalomania. Remember “Hillary Care?” Either does anyone else. And the Tea Party class of the GOP, the people elected in 2010, have largely kept their promises.

ANNAN: But the Minnesota GOP had the governor’s office from 2002 to 2010, and the House until 2008, and both chambers in 2011 and 2011, and nothing changed.

BERG: Plenty changed. “Republican” used to mean Arne Carlson. It used to mean “go along with the DFL in turning surpluses into more permanent spending”.

ANNAN: The GOP raised the budget in 2011, and built the stadium.

BERG: Yep. And both were wrong. And in neither case did the Tea Party class of 2010 go along, at least without a fight.

ANNAN: Bla bla bla. The GOP always compromises.

BERG: Parts of the GOP – the older, “Moderate” wing of the party, especially, which still exerts way too much control over the party at the Capitol – certainly does. Parties don’t change overnight. The GOP still caves in on way too much. It’s improving, as conservatives slowly replace moderates.

And let’s be honest; Minnesota is a blueish purple state at best. Minnesota is split between various shades of red and hard, deep blue. When a conservative goes to Saint Paul, and wants to get anything done, compromise is inevitable. There is no way anyone who gets elected to office as a conservative in Minnesota doesn’t have to defile the purity of their principles at some point or another.

ANNAN: Yeah, well, I’m sick of voting for the lesser of two evils all the time. I’m going to vote my absolute, pure principles and vote Libertarian.

BERG: And that way, you’ll promote liberty.

ANNAN: Yep.

BERG: So let me get this straight; you won’t vote for Republicans because previous generations of Republicans have had to compromise the purity of their principles when they actually got into a room with the other side and had to actually try to get things done, to say nothing of having to stop the other side from getting worse things, like daycare unionization and gun control, done.

ANNAN: Yep.

BERG: And you’ll vote for someone who’s never had to test the purity of his precious principles by trying to enact any kind of policy at all, much less over the votes of a legislature that is at least 50% completely hostile to everything your candidate says.

Don’t get me wrong. I could see myself supporting Rand Paul for President.

ANNAN: Ew. He’s abandoned his principles. Not like Doctor Paul.

BERG: You’re proving my point. “Doctor” Paul never got elected to anything outside of a House district in Texas. And for all his big talk about policy – auditing the fed, disengaging abroad, yadda yadda – he admits, albeit quietly, that he never could have done it. He had no support in Congress.

ANNAN: Why do you hate liberty?

BERG: Actually, I clearly respect liberty more than you do.

ANNAN: Hah! How can you say that?

BERG: Because the only way you’re going to get your agenda passed is to elect a libertarian monarch who takes office, sweeps away a century of noxious policy by decree, and then steps down. Hopefully. And that’s fine, if “magical thinking” is good enough for you. But that’s really all voting for a third party gets you. A third party vote is a wasted vote.

ANNAN: It wasn’t with Jesse Ventura! He had principles and he stuck with them!

BERG: No, he didn’t. He ran on a promise of returning the entire plus to the people. And once he got elected, he had to deal with the fact that was a governor with no caucus in the legislature – two Democrats flipped over to the Independence Party over the next year, and that was it. So we had to run with his hat in hand to Roger Moe, the DFLSenate majority leader, and cut deals like a madman. Meaning that about a third of the surplus got paid back. And the rest of it got turned into permanent spending, the way the DFL wanted.

So where was the principal?

ANNAN: He sent a message!

BERG: Yep. And that message was “voting for a third-party candidate is of nothing but symbolic value”.